[snopercod]

By my calcs, CVX is paying 4%, XOM is paying 3%, and BP is paying 3.6%. Still not all that great.

But the P/E ratio CVX is 30+, XOM's is 18, and BP's is 60! Not good. Historically speaking, the price should fall to 1/3 of today's values to make the P/E's assume "normal" values.

BTW, my Mother is still holding her Arco shares that she bought in 1951! Of course they morphed into Amoco, then BP, but she never sold them. [I advised her to sell two years ago, but she didn't] She would always say, "What do I care if the market is up or down, as long as they keep paying dividends." (Of course that philosophy didn't work so well for the AT&T she bought around the same time.)

[Dog Gone]

But the P/E ratio CVX is 30+, XOM's is 18, and BP's is 60! Not good. Historically speaking, the price should fall to 1/3 of today's values to make the P/E's assume "normal" values.

P/E is only important for "growth stocks". You can't expect a stock that's paying a healthy dividend to be valued the same as one that's not, especially in a bear market.

I'm not pumping BP stock or any other in the sector. I don't really care how low they go. I'm simply suggesting that the lower they go, the more attractive they are compared to cash alternatives.

[steveegg]

I really hate it when people say that stocks need to go all the way back to their historical P/Es. There's a lot more money chasing essentially the same amount of earnings. That along will drive up the price, and thus P/E beyond what has historically been called "safe". Does that mean that a P/E of 60 is good? No; but XOM's 18 sure isn't overpriced (assuming, of course, the earnings aren't cooked), and CVX isn't that far off at 30.